Secondly, you have to accept the fact that some people are irredeemable--they don't want to change, they aren't going to change. Nothing you do or say will make them change. You don't need to be nice to these people, you don't need to curry to them, 'cuz guess what? They're not going to be nice to you.

Most of the time I've seen the term Dudebro used it's been part of a rant, and rant's aren't always about changing people, rants are about venting negative emotions or calling attention to things. You don't need to be nice to accomplish this successfully. They're basically this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkcoobYUu8g

I figured suspicion and doubt might as well be interchangeable if my position is "unsure but leaning towards you being at least somewhat wrong".

As for redemption, you said it yourself:

Quote:

Sadly, a lot of people need the verbal slap of being called a dudebro. Going back to racism, I've known people who, in ignorance, acted racistly until they were openly called on it.

So perhaps it's inaccurate to say "nobody's beyond salvation," but even so, I think "some people" are not grounds for being mean to everyone. That being said, not being mean does not necessarily require that one be nice. That's just silly, nobody wants to be a doormat.

In the context of a rant, using such words understandable, but words have a way of slipping from private speech acts to public ones very quickly.

I apologize if this contradicts anything I've said before. I'm learning.

Not quite, but thanks for making me smile. I usually try not to interject with claims of misandry when a discussion of misogyny is going on unless someone says it's impossible to be sexist against men._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

In the context of a rant, using such words understandable, but words have a way of slipping from private speech acts to public ones very quickly.

I apologize if this contradicts anything I've said before. I'm learning.

Have you seen anyone doing this? Is it a widespread problem? Because, again, I think the point that stereotypes are wrong is a perfectly good reason to object to their use anywhere, but the point you're making here sounds like a forewarning of something that might happen. Which is obviously not getting you much traction._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

In the context of a rant, using such words understandable, but words have a way of slipping from private speech acts to public ones very quickly.

I apologize if this contradicts anything I've said before. I'm learning.

Have you seen anyone doing this? Is it a widespread problem? Because, again, I think the point that stereotypes are wrong is a perfectly good reason to object to their use anywhere, but the point you're making here sounds like a forewarning of something that might happen. Which is obviously not getting you much traction.

Yes, I have, with other words. Remember "swag"? Nobody outside of Odd Future fantards used that for the longest time, and then suddenly lots of people used it. Remember "feminazi"? That used to be largely an "ebaumsworld" thing... or perhaps just a general internet thing. I hear some people saying that in person now. It's a problem.

I recognize that not every word or phrase has such a memetic value, but seriously, it's just not a good thing to have around, even if it doesn't spiral out of control. I was hoping to convey a dissatisfaction with derogatory speech in such a progressive movement and not some sort of doomsday panic._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

i thought feminazi was a rush limbaugh thing, he certainly has the publicity to make that a well-known term (and well-used, among his fans).

but i think the situation is a nuanced one. no, you should not start out by calling someone who doesn't get feminism a dudebro, but if he shows persistent and escalating wrongheadedness, than an escalation of your own terminology is fair.

or if you encounter someone like flu. seriously, go check him out. and then come back and tell us you would _not_ be tempted to use ....well, just all _sorts_ of derogatory language._________________aka: neverscared!

i thought feminazi was a rush limbaugh thing, he certainly has the publicity to make that a well-known term (and well-used, among his fans).

but i think the situation is a nuanced one. no, you should not start out by calling someone who doesn't get feminism a dudebro, but if he shows persistent and escalating wrongheadedness, than an escalation of your own terminology is fair.

or if you encounter someone like flu. seriously, go check him out. and then come back and tell us you would _not_ be tempted to use ....well, just all _sorts_ of derogatory language.

It's highly possible that he started it.
Those kinds of people I try my best to ignore. I also try to avoid escalation of namecalling because it goes absolutely nowhere. If I wanted to go nowhere, I wouldn't be talking to people, I would be sleeping._________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

Remember "feminazi"? That used to be largely an "ebaumsworld" thing... or perhaps just a general internet thing. I hear some people saying that in person now. It's a problem.

Tangent, I know, but I'm quite sure I remember hearing people using feminazi in person in the mid-90s, before I even had a computer.

Overall, I think your point is very, very minor. To remove a slightly offensive word from the medium offensive argument I am making seems a bit silly. The dudebro will already be offended when I call him misogynist, and when I point out how stupid his arguments are, I will have "lost him", no matter how polite I try to be otherwise. "Dudebro" is the least offensive thing I am likely to say._________________"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine

Remember "feminazi"? That used to be largely an "ebaumsworld" thing... or perhaps just a general internet thing. I hear some people saying that in person now. It's a problem.

Tangent, I know, but I'm quite sure I remember hearing people using feminazi in person in the mid-90s, before I even had a computer.

Overall, I think your point is very, very minor. To remove a slightly offensive word from the medium offensive argument I am making seems a bit silly. The dudebro will already be offended when I call him misogynist, and when I point out how stupid his arguments are, I will have "lost him", no matter how polite I try to be otherwise. "Dudebro" is the least offensive thing I am likely to say.

So... why waste your time on that person? You ought to know by now when someone's just trying to start a fight.
And how does saying "your arguments are stupid" help one's case? Assuming you are not being condescending, if you've lost them, you can and should just stop replying to that person online.

My point cannot possibly be minor if the existence of such terminology is the antithesis of a progressive movement in the first place. You're not supposed to want, need, or find any use in angry, derogatory, or hateful words (whether or not you meet this ideal is another story). Besides, there's plenty of ways to make someone feel awful for disagreeing with you without those things _________________If at first you don't succeed [in persuading or explaining something to me], then try and try again.

Overall, I think your point is very, very minor. To remove a slightly offensive word from the medium offensive argument I am making seems a bit silly. The dudebro will already be offended when I call him misogynist, and when I point out how stupid his arguments are, I will have "lost him", no matter how polite I try to be otherwise. "Dudebro" is the least offensive thing I am likely to say.

So at what point does it become wrong to stereotype people? If not dudebro, when?_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

I don't think dudebro or mansplaining are in themselves sexist, and certainly not in the same way as "slut". Or indeed "feminazi" (that particular vernacular had the benefit of being backed by people like Rush Limbaugh). As far as severity is concerned, I think looking who uses a term how, rather than using an etymological definition.

Who do the terms "dudebro" and "mansplaining" include? When you use those terms, they are meant specifically for one sex. It's less toxic than "slut" but still, on some level, sexist.
Is a word less racist because someone of the group being insulted uses such a word? I don't think so.

There's also this absolutely brilliant article, which drives the point home why it's not just a problem with Ronald Reagan and that I think I've posted before: Why "Mansplaining" Is Still a Problem

But, see... it's very condescending. I've yet to hear a woman be accused of "mansplaining" and I've been around some very misogynistic women (some might call them social conservatives, or perhaps brainwashed). Not a peep. My point isn't about fairness, because frankly I don't care if a derogatory/condescending term is used for one or both sexes or for anyone. My point is that it is the antithesis of a progressive movement.

Well that's because mansplaining has a kind of specific definition. Which you would have known if you had read the links, even just one of them, that I posted.

Smooshie wrote:

Quote:

But back to my original point, I don't think using "dudebro" as a term is a slippery slope to racism, or I suppose "misandry" in this case.

Firstly derogatory language against women is not bad just because it's mean, it's bad because it is one component of a much larger system of oppression, call it sexism, misogyny or patriarchy, it's still fundamentally the same thing. There is no equivalent "misandrist" matriarchy no matter what MRA's might tell you (and while we're at it, reverse racism? complete nonsense).

Also "dudebro" is a way to describe "Bro-culture". Which is totally also a real thing, and I believe inherently derogatory. What terminology is best when is perhaps an open discussion, but, like I've said, there is a fundamental difference.

There is no matriarchy in our first-world society, but misandry exists. It's a direct product of the patriarchy and a series of convoluted expectations of men in an increasingly progressive society. To say that one cannot be prejudiced against one group or another is ignorant and depressing. What makes the privileged group so special that it's suddenly impossible to discriminate/hate them? I've seen white people get jumped simply because they were white. Petty compared to what non-whites may experience, but still "a thing".

I'm not comfortable with "dudebro" because it is a lot wider in scope than "bro-culture," and while I'm not questioning the legitimacy of the idea that these people exist, I am dissatisfied with the idea that it is okay to use derogatory language in a progressive movement.

Not sure what you're getting at exactly.
But I think you're missing my point, Even if you were to dig up the most strawman of man hating ultra radfem it's still not the same thing as misogyny. That's kind of the essence of being a privileged group, as a man I do not suffer any systemic discrimination due to my gender either personally or professionally. If the idea that being non discriminated against due to my gender and ethnicity because I am white and male seems kind of fucked up that's because it is. But that's how it works._________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

Firstly derogatory language against women is not bad just because it's mean, it's bad because it is one component of a much larger system of oppression, call it sexism, misogyny or patriarchy, it's still fundamentally the same thing. There is no equivalent "misandrist" matriarchy no matter what MRA's might tell you (and while we're at it, reverse racism? complete nonsense).

This is basically what I was gunna say, but Him beat me to it.

*highfives*_________________A cigarette is the perfect type of a perfect pleasure. It is exquisite, and it leaves one unsatisfied. What more can one want? ~Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray

I guess I'm just not clear on why stereotyping is okay as long as you pick the right people to stereotype. Is, "Who is the dominant class?" really the determinant of who should and should not be stereotyped? Doesn't that seem irrational? If stereotypes hurt people, even if unequally, shouldn't we avoid using them against anyone? Wouldn't that be most equal?_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

So how do you get around people's need to label things, then? Like, where does it stop being a label and start being a harmful stereotype?

How productive is it to sit here drawing lines in the sand?

I don't know, I don't really have a lot to add to this conversation but questions.

I don't think calling someone a bad name is necessarily stereotyping them, though, and names like "dudebro" definitely don't carry the weight of internalized sexism with them.

Like, men don't get called dudebro until they cross paths with a particular kind of feminist. Women get called bitch, cunt, slut, and whore by damn near anybody who doesn't like them. It's important to recognize the difference in impact between them._________________Samsally the GrayAce

Dogen gets it. People can't put themselves in others' shoes without the temptation to project. Everyone present has had that experience at least once, if I'm allowed to project of course.

There's an instinct to label, but it tends to bear the weight of a person's own value-system about the world. Drawing lines in the sand, will more likely than not, be soaked with the sea foam of personal bias. Or maybe dust from biased seashells, I dunno. Anyway, those values can't be gauged towards everyone. People have different reasons and ways for going about society, and despite that, we can't forget we're all in this place together. A little compassion goes a long way. As for the people who complacently attack women, they're utterly misguided for that realm of thought, so why should an intelligent dissenter bring themselves down to their level and fan the bonfire? Regardless of their personal scenario.